Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Thread Split! Culture Cup Rules!

Why would someone who is homosexual not want to be homosexual any more than someone who is heterosexual not want to be heterosexual?

Unless they live in the type of intolerant, religious fundamentalist society that Ann Widdecombe would advocate.

Gave up on religion when I saw a bunch of religious right wingers chucking coins at a begging Parkinson's sufferer sitting outside their church....

"No free rides Pal but have a few coins"....

But I am agnostic rather than atheist...........Like to keep my hand in just in case..

Still at least we have some policies from the Brexit Party..

1. Try to cure Homosexuals..

2. Hand over the NHS to US investors...

Won't be voting for Farage anytime soon me thinks..

Anyone else shocked that the Arron Banks funded Nigel Farage is suggesting US style insurance model for the NHS?

Can't even begin to think which fat, racist and involved in the insurance industry businessman with a long standing association with Farage would stand to benefit from that model.

Simon Schama.....historian.... terrified of Donald Trump.

What a shower.  From historian to shameless Anti-Trump propagandist in 15 or 20 minutes of cringeworthy campaigning for the American Democrat Party.

Every establishment 'history' former (political and 'intellectual' academia) weaponised and ordered onto the battlefield to attack the big Orange lad that doesn't give a Schidt about any of them.

Maybe Schama is annoyed that Trump didn't give him another new and 'great' East/West World War to pontificate about to the undergraduates in the decade or two to come.  Oh well, don't lose hope Simon, a Real politician may get in next time (Democrat or Republican) and you'll get a nice new war or two to keep the history books churning.  

superflyweight wrote:Why would someone who is homosexual not want to be homosexual any more than someone who is heterosexual not want to be heterosexual?  

Unless they live in the type of intolerant, religious fundamentalist society that Ann Widdecombe would advocate.    

Which is why I find it a particularly disgusting thing to say. "Oh, You're sad? Have you tried being straight?"

superflyweight wrote:Anyone else shocked that the Arron Banks funded Nigel Farage is suggesting US style insurance model for the NHS?  

Can't even begin to think which fat, racist and involved in the insurance industry businessman with a long standing association with Farage would stand to benefit from that model.  

Another case that stinks to the high heavens. I cant imagine the mind that sees this happening and thinks its perfectly fine.

Trumps NHS comments should open up the Tory leadership race....

Most Tory members would want it sold off I expect....Most voters wouldn't...

Hmm those wishing for Brexit claiming it gives them 'independence' they already had must be thinking hard about the consequences. A deal with the US - a US with the most loathed and distrusted president ever. He has laid his cards on the table. He wants the NHS as part of trade deals. Seems like it would be out of the frying pan and into the fire to me. And remember these talks going on when he knows the UK is desperate and vulnerable.

I guess the operative word is 'deal'.

Would Trump and his negotiators really want to play hard ball with the UK when the whole purpose of any deal would obviously be to encourage More European Nations OUT of their relationship with the EU.

The UK has become a test case for all eventualities.  The EU wants to make the UK suffer as much as possible from the interminable struggle to Divorce.  And that's not so much personal direct bitterness at the Brexit vote but more to simply make the thoughts of withdrawal extremely uncomfortable for the remaining members.
Of course a Trump American administration wants to show that Leaving the EU could be very beneficial indeed for a European Nation that wanted to take back full autonomy of its trade deals.  If the UK was furious with the conditions of any future deal, that would be a self imposed wound to Trump's greater plan of breaking down the protectionist trade wall of the EU.

But the word is Deal.  Both sides will have initial desires and negotiating 'demands'.  In real terms, the UK has as much leverage over the conclusion as the US.  A Deal has to be seen as a big win for both sides, as long term politics is at play and the world is watching.

It isn't rocket science though. The UK is dealing from a position of desperation and weakness. They are desperate to replace a massive hole in trade deals whereas the US are not. If you think a born businessman like Trump got where he is without being a ruthless operator you are mistaken.

SecretFly wrote:I guess the operative word is 'deal'.

Would Trump and his negotiators really want to play hard ball with the UK when the whole purpose of any deal would obviously be to encourage More European Nations OUT of their relationship with the EU.

The UK has become a test case for all eventualities.  The EU wants to make the UK suffer as much as possible from the interminable struggle to Divorce.  And that's not so much personal direct bitterness at the Brexit vote but more to simply make the thoughts of withdrawal extremely uncomfortable for the remaining members.
Of course a Trump American administration wants to show that Leaving the EU could be very beneficial indeed for a European Nation that wanted to take back full autonomy of its trade deals.  If the UK was furious with the conditions of any future deal, that would be a self imposed wound to Trump's greater plan of breaking down the protectionist trade wall of the EU.

But the word is Deal.  Both sides will have initial desires and negotiating 'demands'.  In real terms, the UK has as much leverage over the conclusion as the US.  A Deal has to be seen as a big win for both sides, as long term politics is at play and the world is watching.

To quote Malcolm Tucker - "Jesus H Corbett!".

CaledonianCraig wrote:It isn't rocket science though. The UK is dealing from a position of desperation and weakness. They are desperate to replace a massive hole in trade deals whereas the US are not. If you think a born businessman like Trump got where he is without being a ruthless operator you are mistaken.

I was actually going to add at the end that despite his caricature image, Trump is a well practiced businessman...and regardless of what anyone thinks about his character, his history or his ideology, in that cut-throat world of business, a successful one.

So I agree with you.  People laugh at him as a pompous idiot but he's a shrewd operator.  Therefore I repeat, he's always looking at the bigger picture and many moves ahead.  He's thinking about more than the UK and he knows he has to get the optics right about America being a tough but very beneficial trading partner. It serves no purpose of his to have potential trading partner Nations running a mile from his negotiators based on any suicide deal the UK might be 'forced' to sign.

So he initially talks tough to make sure he has negotiating leverage - a natural step in any pre-negotiations.  But it's in his best business interests that the UK emerges from any deal in a happy buoyant mood.

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I guess the operative word is 'deal'.

Would Trump and his negotiators really want to play hard ball with the UK when the whole purpose of any deal would obviously be to encourage More European Nations OUT of their relationship with the EU.

The UK has become a test case for all eventualities.  The EU wants to make the UK suffer as much as possible from the interminable struggle to Divorce.  And that's not so much personal direct bitterness at the Brexit vote but more to simply make the thoughts of withdrawal extremely uncomfortable for the remaining members.
Of course a Trump American administration wants to show that Leaving the EU could be very beneficial indeed for a European Nation that wanted to take back full autonomy of its trade deals.  If the UK was furious with the conditions of any future deal, that would be a self imposed wound to Trump's greater plan of breaking down the protectionist trade wall of the EU.

But the word is Deal.  Both sides will have initial desires and negotiating 'demands'.  In real terms, the UK has as much leverage over the conclusion as the US.  A Deal has to be seen as a big win for both sides, as long term politics is at play and the world is watching.

To quote Malcolm Tucker - "Jesus H Corbett!".  

Were you out cheering and crying with Corbyn yesterday? Hope you had a lovely day, super Someone's gotta keep the Euro flags flying.

Think Corbyn should have been more Prime Ministerial yesterday and not given a speech..

But do I support speaking out against a guy...

That stereotypes black People in the most negative way..

Boasts he grabs Women by the P***y

Hasn't a clue that 99% of Muslims are peaceful People..

Intimates he wants Women who have been r***d to carry full term.

Happy to take terrified young kids from their Parents at Border controls..

Ripped off people at his faux University..

Yes....If the demo had been near my office yesterday...Would have happily wandered out to show my support for it !

In other news a Party that wants to sell off the NHS and try to fix gay people are an 85% bet to win Peterborough..

PT Barnum was right...

CaledonianCraig wrote:It isn't rocket science though. The UK is dealing from a position of desperation and weakness. They are desperate to replace a massive hole in trade deals whereas the US are not. If you think a born businessman like Trump got where he is without being a ruthless operator you are mistaken.

Nigel Evans was on telly the other day discussing a potential trade deal, and he said proudly that the UK has a trade surplus with the US.

Does he really not know by now how Trump views other countries having a trade surplus with the US?!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Yes....If the demo had been near my office yesterday...Would have happily wandered out to show my support for it !

Good for you. Democracy in action. All for it.

And of course those who support Trump, they wear the caps and attend his rallies - many of them black, Hispanic, female and even those from the LGBT community.... maybe suggesting they don't need so many white heterosexual foreigners fighting their corner for them, as they're well capable of having their own political views on Trump the man and Trump's politics.

But back to Democracy and of course there are a myriad of divergent opinions on the meaning of that word too. For some it means that Donald Trump should never have been President in the first place as he didn't really win the popular vote. For others it means that the Brexit majority was a wrong choice by the majority of those who voted and should not be allowed to take place as it was based on populism not popularity....

And then there are moments when it gets mowed down on the streets, when it's suppressed and imprisoned and executed.

China - so where was Corbyn when the dictator of China showed up for a State visit?
We all know where he was, having his silver knives and forks high dinner at Buckingham with his ideological bedfellow who rules over the perfect, envied, new world order socialist utopia; a Utopia where nobody is allowed any dangerous Nationalistic affiliations to any of their regions because such corrosive emotions would risk ending the Great Communist/Socialist Empire.

Nah... I'll take trash talking Trump over cuddly people's champion Corby

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm those wishing for Brexit claiming it gives them 'independence' they already had must be thinking hard about the consequences. A deal with the US - a US with the most loathed and distrusted president ever. He has laid his cards on the table. He wants the NHS as part of trade deals. Seems like it would be out of the frying pan and into the fire to me. And remember these talks going on when he knows the UK is desperate and vulnerable.

Key issue. No-one should believe a word he says.

On the Tory leadership contest been finding Rory Stewart a breath of fresh air on what is otherwise a v depressing contest (choosing between the likes of Gove, Hunt and Boris is like choosing what STD you'd prefer). His realistic approach to Brexit for example is a rare bit of common-sense in Tory party and he's the sort of compassionate-sounding principled politician who's more likely to appeal to non-traditional Tory voters - that said, he's likely to be v unpopular with the hard-Brexit hard-Right Tory Party membership and doesn't stand a chance.

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:It isn't rocket science though. The UK is dealing from a position of desperation and weakness. They are desperate to replace a massive hole in trade deals whereas the US are not. If you think a born businessman like Trump got where he is without being a ruthless operator you are mistaken.

I was actually going to add at the end that despite his caricature image, Trump is a well practiced businessman...and regardless of what anyone thinks about his character, his history or his ideology, in that cut-throat world of business, a successful one.

So I agree with you.  People laugh at him as a pompous idiot but he's a shrewd operator.  Therefore I repeat, he's always looking at the bigger picture and many moves ahead.  He's thinking about more than the UK and he knows he has to get the optics right about America being a tough but very beneficial trading partner. It serves no purpose of his to have potential trading partner Nations running a mile from his negotiators based on any suicide deal the UK might be 'forced' to sign.

So he initially talks tough to make sure he has negotiating leverage - a natural step in any pre-negotiations.  But it's in his best business interests that the UK emerges from any deal in a happy buoyant mood.

But he isn't a successful businessman. He is just a very vocal one. The only thing he has arguably successfully sold is his name, the rest of his career has been built on his inheritance and basically borrowing so much money from the banks that defaulting on it becomes their problem. This is a man who lost money running a casino. He is only a billionaire because he says that is what his name is worth.

His personal finances are dependent on non US banks because US banks won't lend to him, which has lead him to being more open to 'special' deals with people that even US businessmen would not normally deal with, hence not wanting to release details on his finances.

And given that his whole persona is that of the tycoon with untold wealth and the Midas touch, he'll stop at nothing to maintain that image, and this is where he's hugely vulnerable to blackmail. The last thing he would want is for his actual financial status to come out, and for the illusion to be shattered.

MrInvisible wrote:On the Tory leadership contest been finding Rory Stewart a breath of fresh air on what is otherwise a v depressing contest (choosing between the likes of Gove, Hunt and Boris is like choosing what STD you'd prefer).  His realistic approach to Brexit for example is a rare bit of common-sense in Tory party and he's the sort of compassionate-sounding principled politician who's more likely to appeal to non-traditional Tory voters - that said, he's likely to be v unpopular with the hard-Brexit hard-Right Tory Party membership and doesn't stand a chance.

For those interested in the Tory battle..

Nominations are currently..

Johnson 46
Hunt........32
Gove........29
Raab........24

Last person gets eliminated each time until the final two go forward for a contest..

Though supporters of the eliminated are able to re-allocate support...Its difficult to look past it being two out of the above four....Generally find those like Rory in single figures get overlooked by sympathetic careerists looking for advancement..

Still Mps left to endorse though .

Labour hold.

Peterborough, I apologise.

Few ways to look at it.

Brexit party couldnt win in a heavy leave constituency.

They and the Tories had half the vote and they lost by 600 votes

There's always a few ways to look at. That's the entire problemo with this world where everyone tries to be a winner.

GSC wrote:Few ways to look at it.

Brexit party couldnt win in a heavy leave constituency.

They and the Tories had half the vote and they lost by 600 votes

Also no surprise that (a) Farage sneaked out the back door just before the result was announced and (b) that the Brexit Party explained away their defeat by resorting to racism.  

Who would have thought that a backward and insular party run by backward and insular people would be racist?  Great bunch of lads!

Duty281 wrote:I make the Brexit Party narrow favourites. Very narrow. They will have to overcome the incumbent Labour advantage, as well as the organisational structure of Labour. Labour will know where their voters are and will be able to get out a sizeable postal vote. But the LDs are really going to eat into the Labour vote. And I think it's that which will be the key factor and swing it to the BP. The BP have no sizeable threat eating in to their vote.

In the end, that was the key factor, not the size of the LD vote. Biggest surprise was how well the Tory vote held up.

Quids in at 5/1 on the exchanges, so not all bad.

Peterborough was 63% leave...Both main parties in disarray and the BP can't win in this fertile setting.

Once Johnson is leader looks like this Brexit Squib will get damper in Parliamentary Elections.

Corbyn was the only real winner last night.....The arranged Coup on losing won't materialise....

Not that the result is good for anyone...Even the Lib Dems couldn't build on their momentum..

Surprised the Tory  vote didnt completely collapse.

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I make the Brexit Party narrow favourites. Very narrow. They will have to overcome the incumbent Labour advantage, as well as the organisational structure of Labour. Labour will know where their voters are and will be able to get out a sizeable postal vote. But the LDs are really going to eat into the Labour vote. And I think it's that which will be the key factor and swing it to the BP. The BP have no sizeable threat eating in to their vote.

In the end, that was the key factor

Won't they face this in a general election too?

I saw Farage (briefly) on Sky News this morning saying that Labour won't be able to fight every seat at a general election like they fought this one. That's just as true of the Brexit Party.

Speaking of Farage, he made a quick exit last night when he saw which way the wind was blowing. Proud moment for the party when its leader flees the scene.

GSC wrote:Surprised the Tory  vote didnt completely collapse.

It helped Labour win...Which was strangely good for the Tories as it was a two horse race..

If Farage had won...There would be more substance to the argument The Brexit Party can be a Tory replacement..

The Tories will be satisfied..

Yeah I think despite everything, the big 2 will be happy

Yes, Michael Gove.  We're not interested that you took cocaine 20 years ago.  We're not dumb - no matter how many of the chattering classes pretend innocence and ignorance about such things.  We know that plenty of your kind have indulged - bankers, teachers, politicians, lawyers, judges, TV presenters, comedians, journalists, columnists, scientists.... the high end professional 'influencers' of our age, many in their ranks have all dabbled in the stuff.  And yet still they manage, through careful manipulation of the 'narrative', to paint the picture that it's only street hoodlum scum and gangs and the poor that do the injecting, snorting and mule-ing.
So we don't want to know the potentially stage managed 'humanising' exposure that you indulged in stuff 20 years ago.  What I'd like you to do is come clean and tell us who supplied you back then?  A fellow journalist?  Name him/her or they ( to the police).  If it's a crime to be a drug trafficker, then it's a crime to be a drug trafficker.  So who was it Gove?  Oh you've forgotten the names, have you?
Plus - now that we have you here, I'd also be interested to know how you seemed to cope so well with kicking the habit when so many strong and robust young people around the world find it so hard to do.  I'm taken by the number of famous high ranked people that seem to emerge with the idea that the drug taking was always so long ago in their past.  It's always something they've grown out of, something that was a stupid childhood thing.  So simple, so easy...a walk in the park.   How long ago, in real terms, is that past? How long ago, in real terms, Michael?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.........

I'm looking forward to when we're grown-up enough to have a politician be honest and say, 'I took this drug when I was younger - and I really enjoyed it.'

Sensible drugs policy begins with the admission that taking them is pleasurable, and that there will always be people wanting to take them for that reason.

So is smoking.....pleasurable, that is.  

It's also called chemically induced addiction. And most governments around the world pick up some wonderfully big taxes on a trade/industry/addiction that they often publically disparage for votes yet never remotely come close to banning because of greed.

So who knows, maybe they look on the drug cartels with envy and think to themselves 'hmmm, we could handle some of that action.  We could take our cut if we ...em legalised it for the good of...em...humanity, I guess - Drugs is pleasurable and enjoyable.  Let's needle up in Westminster and vote to save Pleasure by making this lovely gear legal"

The Pleasure and Enjoyment Party!!!

Hey, you're on to something here, Luckless. You'd win by a landslide. Go for it.... Farage wouldn't know what hit him. 100% voter turn out. Single Party Givernment.... no opposition party in existence.

My only regret about taking drugs when I was younger was that I didn't take them more often.

It was great.

Let me guess... 20 years ago?

SecretFly wrote:Yes, Michael Gove.  We're not interested that you took cocaine 20 years ago.  We're not dumb - no matter how many of the chattering classes pretend innocence and ignorance about such things.  We know that plenty of your kind have indulged - bankers, teachers, politicians, lawyers, judges, TV presenters, comedians, journalists, columnists, scientists.... the high end professional 'influencers' of our age, many in their ranks have all dabbled in the stuff.  And yet still they manage, through careful manipulation of the 'narrative', to paint the picture that it's only street hoodlum scum and gangs and the poor that do the injecting, snorting and mule-ing.
So we don't want to know the potentially stage managed 'humanising' exposure that you indulged in stuff 20 years ago.  What I'd like you to do is come clean and tell us who supplied you back then?  A fellow journalist?  Name him/her or they ( to the police).  If it's a crime to be a drug trafficker, then it's a crime to be a drug trafficker.  So who was it Gove?  Oh you've forgotten the names, have you?
Plus - now that we have you here, I'd also be interested to know how you seemed to cope so well with kicking the habit when so many strong and robust young people around the world find it so hard to do.  I'm taken by the number of famous high ranked people that seem to emerge with the idea that the drug taking was always so long ago in their past.  It's always something they've grown out of, something that was a stupid childhood thing.  So simple, so easy...a walk in the park.   How long ago, in real terms, is that past?  How long ago, in real terms, Michael?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.........

All valid but you forgot to mention his utter hypocrisy.

He admits to snorting cocaine yet feels he has the right to run for PM. Yet not long ago he passed laws saying any teacher taking Class A drugs should be struck off and not allowed to run for higher posts. Hypocrisy utter hypocrisy.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

All valid but you forgot to mention his utter hypocrisy.

He admits to snorting cocaine yet feels he has the right to run for PM. Yet not long ago he passed laws saying any teacher taking Class A drugs should be struck off and not allowed to run for higher posts. Hypocrisy utter hypocrisy.

Ah but I thought the hypocrisy spoke for itself, so left it alone.  Yes, hypocrisy - but we're all guilty of that at one time or another.

On the teacher bit, well I'm sure you'll get this as an excuse.  The teachers is bad coz they educate the minds of young easily influenced children.  Gove is still okay coz he was in a man's testosterone world of journalism when he was doing his bit of cryam.  No cryam committed really.  20 YEARS AGO........

A tweet from BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins:

'Some Cons MPs jubilant, some despairing, but v broad consensus Boris Johnson way out ahead round here. His backers' greatest fear isn't any another candidate but their man doing/saying something daft.'

Shouldn't the prospect of Johnson doing / saying something daft once he's become prime minister be of greater concern?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:A tweet from BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins:

'Some Cons MPs jubilant, some despairing, but v broad consensus Boris Johnson way out ahead round here. His backers' greatest fear isn't any another candidate but their man doing/saying something daft.'

Shouldn't the prospect of Johnson doing / saying something daft once he's become prime minister be of greater concern?

Nope, coz it's a foregone conclusion that he will say something daft.  
Why fret about something so inevitable?

There is hypocrisy and then there is politics.  There is also misreporting and spin.

The issue here is who would be the best leader for the Conservative Party at this point in time. Who would be the best Prime Minister is subsidiary to that question.  

To decide who would be the best leader for the Conservative Party one needs to know what are the current significant issues affecting the Conservative Party and what needs to be done to resolve them.

Currently the biggest issues facing the Conservative Party in my view are:
a) Credibility to Conservative voters (those that voted for them in the 2015 and 2017 General Elections)
b) Keeping the Conservative Party together.

So name a name, No name.

If the question is who would be best suited under a) and b) then have you hit an answer? - because I'd almost guarantee you that the person you choose would not be seen as the ideal candidate by those that want someone else.  There's the eternal problem/beauty of politics, someone always thinks you're wrong.

The choice of the next Conservative Leader is a matter for the Conservative Party and the Conservative Membership. I am not a member of the Conservative Party nor any other political party.

When it comes to casting my personal vote at an election I choose who I think is the best person or the best party at the time. I have never allied myself to a political party.

Gove was a journalist before he was an MP.....Though it's always good to have People who have come from outside politics and not just come straight from University to work for Politicians and access Parliament that way..

There is more scope for misdemeanor....Coke Parties is a path avoided say if you are a Miliband and have gone the Professional Politician route.

These Parties have finished off Gove and the way he attacked Johnson yesterday..

No doubts for guessing who was behind the outing.

I think most politicians are "outed" nowadays if they have done something "notable" in their past.  It is really how the politician addresses that information that is important.

It is strange - or at least on social media - traditional "Christian" values are attacked by a vocal few - and almost anything goes when it comes to personal choice - yet often these same vocal few become extremely prudish if it allows them to condemn politicians or others they don't like - in terms of what drugs they smoked or snorted in the past - or in terms of private conversations about sex.  It is almost as if they are playing politics too.  

Same goes for journalism - which at the end of the day is a money making industry - unless you are the BBC - then you are more free to push the "progressive" line.

With regard to Gove - as far as I can recall - he was a weak or maybe quiet student and a weak or maybe quiet but competent journalist - but apparently he made a very good minister in terms of getting things done.   Boris Johnson I think was also a journalist and an editor - but more of a high flier - but loud and pushy with 'skeletons' in the cupboard in terms of sexual conquests (work hard play hard type).

There was an article on the news this morning about the leadership race, and saying that Johnson hadn't launched his leadership campaign yet, and it was accompanied by footage of him surrounded by journalists on his way to his car, saying nothing but with a big sh!t-eating grin on his face. I can't escape the impression that he thinks this is all just a jolly good lark, like he's standing for head boy or something. He wants the office, but he doesn't seem to appreciate the magnitude of the responsibility that comes with it. It's the same with Brexit - if you're immune from the fallout, why wouldn't you treat it as a game?

It's quite telling that all the MPs who worked with him at the Foreign Office have pledged their support to other candidates.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:There was an article on the news this morning about the leadership race, and saying that Johnson hadn't launched his leadership campaign yet, and it was accompanied by footage of him surrounded by journalists on his way to his car, saying nothing but with a big sh!t-eating grin on his face. I can't escape the impression that he thinks this is all just a jolly good lark, like he's standing for head boy or something. He wants the office, but he doesn't seem to appreciate the magnitude of the responsibility that comes with it. It's the same with Brexit - if you're immune from the fallout, why wouldn't you treat it as a game?

It's quite telling that all the MPs who worked with him at the Foreign Office have pledged their support to other candidates.

It is telling if you don't like him....He could counter by suggesting he has 76 mps supporting him to his nearest rival's 36 and has been an MP on and off for 20 years and many of these People have 'worked' with him longer.

I don't think he is fit to be PM....But how many people like their Bosses ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: ... I don't think he is fit to be PM ...

It is said that the American political system is more democratic than the British political system - because in the British system no one directly votes for the Prime Minister - they only vote for their local MP.

I wonder how many people in a BBC studio audience would laugh at that guy Robinson... Tommy ....  if he said:

"certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they are very, very easy to hate. I'm kinda thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid.  That's just me, sorry.  I'm not going to do it, it's purely fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do.  Sorry."

Just to be absolutely clear... Robinson did Not Say that.  But the BBC audience did have a great laugh.